Bill Overview
Title: STOP Act
Description: This bill reauthorizes through FY2027 and revises grants and other activities for reducing underage drinking. In particular, the bill modifies the scope of certain activities to incorporate a focus on the adoption and enforcement of state laws and policies for preventing and reducing underage drinking. This includes (1) assessing in annual reports whether states have adopted best practices related to laws, regulations, and enforcement practices; and (2) establishing a pilot program to collect uniform data from states and localities about their enforcement of underage drinking laws. In addition, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration must contract with the National Academy of Sciences to review the research literature regarding the influence of drinking on adolescent brain development.
Sponsors: Rep. Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D-CA-40]
Target Audience
Population: People under the legal drinking age
Estimated Size: 72000000
- Underage individuals, specifically minors, are the primary target population impacted by the STOP Act as the bill directly addresses reducing their alcohol consumption.
- The act targets the enforcement mechanisms by states and localities, suggesting changes in legislation that could affect how laws are imposed on minors.
- Family members of minors might also be impacted as changes in enforcement could lead to legal and social implications within families.
- Educational institutions and organizations focused on youth safety and education may also be impacted as they might need to adapt to new legislations and enforcement practices.
Reasoning
- The STOP Act primarily affects minors, particularly those between 12 and 20 years old, as it targets underage drinking. Alongside, it indirectly impacts families and institutions through enforced regulations and potential changes in family practices or educational programs.
- The simulation includes a mix of minors directly impacted by the policy, their family members, and people in roles related to youth education and safety.
- Budget constraints limit extensive reach; thus, the strongest impacts are expected in states actively engaging in the pilot and enforcing new policies.
- Commonness scores reflect the relative abundance of such individuals within the context, e.g., parents of teenagers or educators are more common than specialized youth counselors.
Simulated Interviews
student (Florida)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's good that they're trying to do something about underage drinking, but it feels like there could be better ways than just more rules.
- Even though it might affect some of my friends, I don't think it will make a huge difference day-to-day.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
school counselor (Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might give us more resources and frameworks to follow when dealing with underage drinking.
- I'm hopeful that by the time kids hit high school, we can reduce peer pressure related to drinking.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
parent (California)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- More enforcement might mean more trouble for families, but if it's about keeping kids safe, it's worth it.
- I would prefer more education and support programs rather than just enforcing laws.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
college student (New York)
Age: 18 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- College life is heavily influenced by alcohol, so this might help but might also just push things underground.
- I'm worried more strict laws will lead to more trouble for minor issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
teacher (Illinois)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This might bring more updated materials and training into classrooms around alcohol safety.
- Realistically, enforcement happens outside of school, but we can help within by providing good education.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
bartender (Ohio)
Age: 20 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We need stricter enforcement - I see so many fake IDs every week.
- But laws are one thing, actual community action and attitudes are another.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
state policy officer (Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Coordination between federal and state policies could streamline enforcement measures efficiently.
- This could strengthen evidence-based approaches to reducing underage drinking rates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
student (Georgia)
Age: 15 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this is a positive step in making schools and events safer for us.
- Clear laws help remove the guesswork - if there are consequences, people might think twice.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
researcher (Minnesota)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Involvement of the National Academy of Sciences should help underscore the importance of neurodevelopment research in policy formation.
- Long-term, this could lead to more scientifically based understanding and action against underage drinking.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
high school student (Michigan)
Age: 17 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's not just about rules - better activities and community support could help more.
- I hope this policy will lead to more prevention, not just punishment.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $35000000 (Low: $32000000, High: $38000000)
Year 2: $36000000 (Low: $33000000, High: $39000000)
Year 3: $37000000 (Low: $34000000, High: $40000000)
Year 5: $38000000 (Low: $35000000, High: $41000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The act aims to maintain its initial focus on reducing underage drinking, necessitating stable and potentially slightly escalating funding due to its expanded activities.
- Impact on public health could be significant if the measures are effective in reducing underage drinking rates.
- Cooperation and participation by states are crucial for achieving the bill's objectives and determining overall costs.
- There needs to be sufficient budget appropriation for the National Academy of Sciences to conduct thorough reviews.